Abstract The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound. (N Engl J Med 292:78-80, 1975) The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine seems to be accepted by most doctors, and it is endorsed in a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973: The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another -mercy killing is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family. The advice and judgment of the physician should be freely available to the patient and/or his immediate family. However, a strong case can be made against this doctrine. In what follows I will set out some of the relevant arguments, and urge doctors to reconsider their views on this matter. To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request. Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment, as the conventional doctrine says he may. The justification for his doing so is that the patient is in terrible agony, and since he is going to die anyway, it would he wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly.

But now notice this. If one imply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if noire direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once the initial decision not to prolong his agony has been made active euthanasia is actually preferable to passive euthanasia, rather than the reverse. To say otherwise is to endorse the option that leads to more suffering rather than less, and is contrary to the humanitarian impulse that prompts the decision not to prolong his life in the first place. Part of my point is that the process of being "allowed to die" can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless. Let me give a different sort of example. In the United States about one in 600 babies is born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies are otherwise healthy -that is, with only the usual ,

pediatric care, they will proceed to an otherwise normal infancy. Some, however, are born with congenital defects such as intestinal obstructions that require operations if they are to live. Sometimes, the parents and the doctor will decide not to operate, and let...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Section: Philosophy 1318
Article: “Active and PassiveEuthanasia” by James Rachels
Author’s Thesis: There is no principal difference between activeeuthanasia and passiveeuthanasia.
Argument for Rachel’s Thesis: Activeeuthanasia is in many cases more humane than passiveeuthanasia. Intentions and actions are two separate ideas which cannot be compared. He also explains how inaction is still an action because there is a consequence. When performing euthanasia, no matter the intentions, someone still dies. There is no moral distinction between letting die and killing someone because the action’s result is the same. If letting a person die is morally permissible then killing someone is also, and vice versa.
My Thesis: James Rachels’ argument in the article “Active and PassiveEuthanasia” challenges the traditional distinction between active and passiveeuthanasia, stating that there is no important moral difference between the two. While he is correct in saying that it is wrong to prolong a dying patient’s suffering needlessly, his idea that the distinction between active and passiveeuthanasia is not crucial for medical ethics is wrong. The reason it is unmistakably...

...In this dissertation we will explore active and passiveeuthanasia, the brouhaha surrounding the two and which one is appropriate and morally sound for modern times. James Rachel has written a very poignant supposition on active and passiveeuthanasia. Though many disagree with him on the appropriateness of the practice as it relates to humans and what is considered alive. Some believe that one is dead when the brain is dead or in a comatose state.
Conversely, many believe that a person is alive as long as the heart is beating via technical help or not. There are many sides to the controversy of rather or not euthanasia should be administered. There is the question of morality, the question of active versus passiveeuthanasia and the question of when euthanasia should be properly carried out. None of these questions are without backlash and consequences. There seem to be more loopholes within this issue than there are cut and dry. Yet when you look at the problem on a personal level with the actual individuals involved, some of those loopholes almost disappear…seemingly. God put people on this earth to live and be prosperous-to be fruitful and multiply, as the Bible says. Some believe that when it gets to the point where the quality of person's life gets so dark that they can no longer function in the world without...

...Passive vs. ActiveEuthanasia
Natural Law Theory states that an action is only considered “right” if it does not intentionally or directly violate any of the four basic intrinsic goods that thirteenth-century philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas described. According to Aquinas, the four basic intrinsic goods are: human life, human procreation, human knowledge and human sociability. So for example, according to natural law theory, using contraceptives such as condoms or birth control pills would not be morally permissible because it directly and intentionally violates the second intrinsic good: human procreation. Not all situations, however, are as straightforward as right or wrong. In some situations, it is impossible to take an action without violating one of the four basic intrinsic goods. This is where the doctrine of double effect comes into play. The doctrine of double effect declares that an action which violates one of the basic goods is acceptable if it also brings about a good effect and meets four specific conditions. The first condition is intrinsic permissibility, meaning apart from its effects, is the action morally permissible? If it is, we move on to the next condition which is necessity. If there is no possible way to avoid the bad effects that will come to pass, then this condition is met as well. The third condition is nonintentionality. To meet this condition, the bad effect must be unintentional. This brings us to...

...The debate on killing versus letting die is a difficult topic to address due to the emotional weight of the subject and the challenge presented by taking a purely rational approach to assessing the resulting moral implications. Using a bare difference argument allows us to see that there is no difference between the two when it comes down to either actively taking part in another person’s death or passively allowing it to happen. In this paper I will explain how Rachel’s use of the bare difference argument as a method works to support his conclusion, as well as argue why his bare difference argument of Smith and Jones effectively supports the thesis that killing is no worse than letting die.
In order to fully understand Rachel’s argument it is necessary to understand the type of argument it represents. The bare difference argument takes the thesis of one argument and applies it to a very different situation. In this case the argument of active versus passiveeuthanasia is applied to the illustration of Smith and Jones, two individuals presented with a drastically different scenario than someone diagnosed with a terminal illness. The bare difference argument works because if in one situation a thesis is doubted, it allows an opportunity for the thesis to be clarified and gain a better understanding whether you agree with it or disagree by presenting the thesis in contrasting scenario that eliminates variations in...

...﻿Jamaal Williams
Phil 305
Paper #1
Active and PassiveEuthanasia
In the popular television series “Breaking Bad”, there was a very controversial series of events that occurred that caused a lot of debate on social media. In the series, the main characters, Walt and Jessie hit a bump in the road when Jessie’s new girlfriend and drug addiction distracts him from the work he is doing with Walt. When Walt goes over one night to talk some sense into Jessie, who is unconscious at the time from the amount of drugs in his system, his[Jessie] girlfriend begins to vomit in her sleep causing her to choke. Walt starts to help but resists after realizing that by her dying, Jessie will be saved from his unstable state and be able to focus on the work at hand. When this aired on television, many debates went up on social media about the morality of Walt’s decision to let Jessie’s girlfriend die. Even though Walt only wanted what was best for Jessie’s future, his actions in other people’s eyes were wrong. Now I ask the question, if Walt had physically killed Jessie’s girlfriend would that be morally worse than letting her die?
This same question can be applied to the practice of active and passiveeuthanasia in the medical field. Activeeuthanasia as we learned in class is the active acceleration of a "good" death by use of drugs etc.,...

...Differences Between Passive and ActiveEuthanasia
Abstract
Euthanasia is one word that is part of a nationwide debate that is often wrought with resistance due to selective terms being used interchangeably to result in misunderstandings and mass confusion. These combinations of individual terms create for completely different meanings, meanings that have already been instilled into the minds of human society that contribute to misconceptions about euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional termination of life by another at the request of the person who is to receive their right to die, instead of dying naturally. There are many correlating synonyms of “eu” good and “thanatos” death: death with dignity, mercy killing, compassion in dying, and murder are some expressed by those who support as well as those against euthanasia. One important objective that will be met is the clarification of all labels associated with euthanasia: voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, passive, active, and omission. It is through describing the differences between passive and activeeuthanasia that similarities will be unearthed while also including intent, refusal, and request. Euthanasia has been linked to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), both of which are commonly debated due to being...

...nurses around the world have been discussing different topics to try to find cures for all kinds of health issues people are faced with. One main topic that has been discussed is Euthanasia, which is the act of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Euthanasia is also called medically assisted suicide by a lot of people. It was also originated from the Greek language and occurs in every race of people. Euthanasia should not be forced on anyone but has good reasons in some cases.
“There are two types of Euthanasia, active and passive. ActiveEuthanasia is death by commission. PassiveEuthanasia is death by emission.” (Mcmanaman 2). ActiveEuthanasia is very simple from a moral point of view. It is never justified though because it always amounts to murder. PassiveEuthanasia can be of good and of immeasurable value regardless of the condition of the patient. (McManaman 2). If you are not very ill or in a dying state these actions will not be performed on you, because then it will just be just like murdering a patient. Either type of Euthanasia should only be able to be legally processed. If it is not legally processed whoever is a family member of one who has been killed by it can...

...Galvin
Research Paper: EuthanasiaEuthanasia
A topic that has been pressing for the past couple of decades has been the ethical/immoral use of ‘Euthanasia’. For those who don’t know, Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection “ Actively” or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment” Passively” (Manning 1998). This leads me to ask myself a question, “Is Euthanasia an ethical request to end pain, and suffering, or just a poor admit to commit suicide?” People argue that euthanasia is conflicting with a person’s right to life. A person’s right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live. This means that by saying that someone should be euthanized, we are violating this right to life and it is immoral. In turn, there are some instances where Euthanasia makes sense, we don’t want to see our loved in pain right?
On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. To understand the impact of the piece of legislation being passed, one must understand the consent debate over this topic. These...